Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

Cumulonimbus + AgI = ?? (revisited)

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/12/13

I’m reprinting an article I wrote 13 months ago. An article I wrote 13 months ago, I’m reprinting. An article that doesn’t even get into the most recent huge schadenfreudig spreading through the sane world. But an article I find especially prescient, given the Obama administration’s desperate efforts to prevent ObamaCare’s huge pains from actually hitting just yet…
___________________________________________

A dark cloud follows him wherever he goes.
Every cloud has a silver lining.

Farmers obviously need rain for their crops, so there are some who resort to cloud seeding, adding silver iodide to the clouds to try to force rain out of them. But it’s a bad idea to seed a thunderstorm cloud. Cumulonimbus clouds can produce nasty things like hail storms, massive lightning storms, micro-bursts, tornadoes.

And of course, there are those who always bring bad luck with them, like Bad Luck Schleprock, our current President.


 
So, today I am telling you about the seeding of a 3,000 mile wide thunderstorm cloud hanging over the US — and the silver lining that comes with it. It’s painfully schadenfreudig. Painfully schadenfreudig, indeed. (Multiple stacked redundancy intentional.) Barack Obama and the Democrats, very cynically aware that their grand scheme to shove the US headlong into Socialism could cause them to fall out of power, set up a series of Laws and programs that would save most of the very bad results until after the 2012 election. After having blamed Bush for all the Democrat-and-Socialist caused travails, they would have a way of avoiding responsibility for the looming mega-disaster. It works like this:

  • Set up a Socialist system with all the false positives front-loaded and all the negatives back-loaded.
  • Get possibly voted out of office before the negatives hit, so the Socialist-caused negatives would hit when Conservatives were in office.
  • Blame the Conservatives in office for the economic disaster the Socialists caused.
  • Get the Socialists re-elected to complete the evil transformation of the Free Market US into a Socialist state, with the Conservatives forever blemished by the results of Socialist actions.

But a strange thing happened along the way. The Socialists got re-elected by a completely ignorant, envious, slothful, free hand-out seeking crowd. And all the back-loaded disasters will hit while the Socialists are in power. (By the way, did you know that tornadoes are also backloaded? They are on the back end of cumulonimbus clouds, and not up front.)

ObamaCare is one such program. As most of it is set to kick in now that the election is over, total disaster is on the horizon. Businesses, who cannot pay the cost of ObamaCare and stay afloat at the same time, will be laying off massive numbers of workers nationwide. Other businesses will be cutting their low-level employees (the working poor) to under 30 hours a week so those businesses can stay in business. Very little expansion will be happening, if any at all. It’ll be full-on contraction.

A nice little poisonberry in ObamaCare — that “make health care cheaper for all” lie — is a 2.3 percent excise tax on all medical devices, such as crutches, wheelchairs, heart stents, etc, etc. And an excise tax is far worse than a profit tax or income tax. It hits the gross revenue and not the after-expenses cost. For example, suppose it costs a business 5,000 dollars for the raw materials to make a single product. Add in the labor costs, the health insurance costs, the retirement costs, the social security tax, the medicare tax, the property tax for the building itself, the electricity cost, the property insurance cost, the transportation cost, the bookkeeping cost, and all other costs associated with getting the already developed product to market and the final cost to the business is 6,800 dollars. The business sells the product for 7,000 dollars because that’s what the market will bear. The business gets a profit of 200 dollars per sale.

In comes the 2.3 percent excise tax. Another 161 dollars off the top. The new profit for the 7,000 dollar item falls from 200 dollars to a whopping 39 dollars (an effective tax rate of 80.5 percent of the profit). Not enough to make the company a going concern. Kill the Research and Development department of the company — the life-blood of all businesses that want to survive, for if a business is not growing and moving forward it is necessarily dying.

But it doesn’t stop there. No, not at all. That same company also has to pay the new, higher costs involved in providing ObamaCare to all its employees (instead of the less expensive insurance plans which were optional, which fair portions of employees did not opt into). That 39 dollars per product, which used to be 200 dollars per product goes negative. It costs more to produce than it can be sold for.

But, again, it doesn’t stop there. Obama’s declaration that electricity costs must necessarily skyrocket and he’ll bankrupt coal-fired electric plants necessarily means the energy-intensive manufacturing industry will get hit hard with skyrocketing overhead costs. Costs that cannot be reduced merely by laying people off. So instead, the companies will shutter its doors and either go off-shore or cease to exist, providing a double-whammy of forcing the products to become far more expensive than they are now and far more difficult to obtain.

Small businesses will collapse. The middle class will become working poor. The working poor will become the unemployable destitute. Products the middle class used to be able to afford will become luxury items. Items that were luxuries for the working poor will become nothing but unreachable pipe-dreams. Inflation will go into hyper-drive. Interest rates will climb, making the cost of borrowing prohibitive. And deficit spending, which has been kept artificially low (yeah, I said it), will explode.

How is 1.2 trillion dollars (or more) in deficit spending “artificially low”? That’s a good question. And I have a good answer for that. Two words: “debt” and “service”. Debt service.

Historical view of the Prime Rate from Forecast Chart.com (8 percent line added).

Above is a chart showing the historic levels for the Prime Rate, from Forecast Chart.com. I added a red line at 8 percent for reference. Below is a chart showing the historic levels for the Discount Rate, from a 2009 article on Apin Talisayon’s Weblog (data obtained from the Financial Forecast Center). I added a red line at 6 percent for reference.

US Discount Rate From 1950 as found on Apin Talisayon’s Weblog (6 percent red line added).

From Apin Talisayon:

As I said, central banks had recently been dropping interest rates, and so we cannot use the abnormally low prevailing interest rates (0.5%). I plotted the historical data of discount rates set by the US Federal Reserve since January 1950 from the Financial Forecast Center[.]

As you can see in the above two charts, the Prime Rate and the Discount Rate differ in levels, but mirror each other. And they’re not only at historic lows; they’re far below historic norms. That means the future necessarily will provide much higher rates on borrowing than today. And the Federal Government’s debt service costs absolutely must skyrocket. Couple that with the US credit rating crumbling — and will continue to crumble — and the interest on the debt will become astronomical. Even a fairly normal rate of 6 percent with our current 16,000,000,000,000 dollar deficit means 960 BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments alone. By 2015, our national debt will be 20 TRILLION DOLLARS and the interest on that debt will be 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS. That’s before paying for roads, bridges, high speed trains to nowhere, free birth control pills for Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling), free abortion pills for Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling), free ObamaPhones, free health care, free foodstamps, free college tuition, free housing for the poor and forever pregnant single mothers, free Big Bird, free NPR propaganda, bailing out California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, free cowboy poetry, and oh yeah, paying for our national defense.

1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO PAY FOR ALREADY SPENT MONEY WE DIDN’T HAVE BEFORE PAYING FOR ANY CURRENT PROGRAMS AND EXPENSES!!!

The Socialist who ascended the throne in DC, along with the Socialists in the US Senate who have adamantly refused to produce a Federal Budget since April, 2009, in direct violation of Federal Law and the US Constitution, have successfully Cloward-Pivened the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. The most prosperous nation this world has ever seen has been successfully brought to financial ruin by the Leftists in power who have no use for a document that is “over 100 years old”. The aim? Destroy the Free Market and implement Socialism worldwide.

The silver lining? Conservatives have not been responsible for any of it. Conservatives have not been in charge for any of it. I know, little solace for the loss of a once great and mighty and FREE nation. Will there be anything left to save by 2016? And will there be any conceivable way to save it and return to prosperity from the Abyss of Destitution Obama and the Socialist Democrats have created? Or will it already be too late? I, for one, am not looking forward to the disaster these next 10 years will provide us. (UPDATE: Nice Deb performed her Karnac impression and answered my questions before seeing them. Go to her site to read her answers.)

RELATED
This medical device tax is just not going to end well
Economics 101: Schadenfreude!
Video: What free-market medicine looks like
2013: A Century Of Progress
Gee, why do you think the Obama administration waited until after November 6th to mail these letters?

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Conservative, Culture, economics, Elections, Health, Health Care, Law, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, politics, Socialists, society, Tax, truth | 3 Comments »

But it’s for our own good!

Posted by Dana Pico on 2012/06/17

From CBS News:

Bloomberg soda ban: Board of Health eyes popcorn and milkshakes

By Michelle Castillo

(CBS News) While the New York City Board of Health approves of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to cut all large sugary drinks from New Yorker’s diets, some members are taking issue with one major point: They don’t think the plan goes far enough.

The city’s Board of Health met on June 12th to approve the Mayor’s proposal; they scheduled a public hearing on the proposal for July 24th, and a final vote on September 13th. If approved, the new regulation would take effect six months later.

Certain members spoke up, however, saying that the proposal should include other items. Board member Bruce Vladeck questioned why large tubs of popcorn were not included in the ban, according to the New York Daily News. Another member, Dr. Joel Forman, pointed out that even 100 percent juice and milk-containing beverages have large amounts of calories and should not be excluded.

While Dr. Kenneth Popler, board member and president of the Staten Island Mental Health Society, recognized that it would infringe on New Yorkers’ rights, he felt that the health benefits were worth it, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported. Obesity has led to 5,800 deaths a year in New York City and costs taxpayers $4 billion, according to statements presented at the meeting.

Fox & Friends had a short segment on this issue this morning,¹ and a nutritionist and dietitian, Laura Cipullo, presented the “pro” side of the argument. As always in these brief segments, Mrs Cipullo didn’t have a lot of time to flesh out her arguments — pun intended — but she began by noting that the government has assumed a responsibility for the individual’s nutrition with the Food Stamp program.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, in his skewering questioning of the hapless and hopelessly overmatched Solicitor General, Donald Virrelli,² suggested that the Obama Administration’s position on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could extend to requiring people to buy broccoli³:

Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.

If it is within the government’s authority to require health care coverage, and if it is the government’s ultimate responsibility to see to it that everyone has sufficient food on which to live, and if obesity and diabetes are serious health care problems which place financial burdens on the government and the public in general, I fail to see why the government wouldn’t or shouldn’t have the authority not only to compel you to buy broccoli, as Justice Scalia mockingly suggested, but to require you to eat the broccoli as well. After all, broccoli is good for you, being high in nutritional value and low in calories, and the more you fill up on green vegetables, the less room you will have for soda and popcorn and milk shakes, keeping your weight down. I noted, in 2005:

There are plenty of people who seem to find themselves in the business of regulating private conduct. We see it most obviously when it comes to tobacco: several major cities have major bans on smoking in public places and even private clubs. One company, Weyco in Michigan, has not only banned smoking on its property, it has banned smoking among its employees . . . even at home.

Weyco doesn’t see any problem with banning all of its employees from smoking, even off the premises, even in the privacy of their own homes, and has enforced the policy through at least three terminations. “There’s not a liberty right or any other right to have any particular employment, and I think it’s time for people in our country to start taking personal responsibility for many aspects of their life, including health care,” said David Houston, Weyco’s general counsel.

Well, if Weyco, a private company, can regulate its employees’ liberties to the extent that they cannot both smoke and remain employees, why couldn’t the federal government, if it were responsible for all health care costs, determine that Americans (all covered by the national health insurance (Jonathan) Cohn4 and so many others advocate) simply couldn’t be allowed to smoke?

Or eat fatty foods?

Or make any of the other private choices Americans are wont to make that don’t necessarily have the best of consequences?

The real problem with Mr. Cohn’s logic is that it is unassailable: he’s actually right about this!

  1. If government is going to be obligated for health care costs, government has a reasonable right to take steps to lower those costs; then
  2. Government has a reasonable right to lower the costs for which it has assumed responsibility; and thus
  3. Government has a reasonable right to regulate private behavior which contributes to higher costs.

Smoking is the most obvious case, and there are plenty of people who advocate government stepping in and making the use of tobacco illegal, period. The fat police (and the ambulance chasers who Mr. Cohn noted were now following pizza delivery boys) have declared war against fatty foods, and if lawsuits against McDonald’s haven’t been successful yet — nearly 90 percent of Americans say they oppose obesity lawsuits against the food industry — it wasn’t all that long ago that the notion that tobacco companies being responsible for smokers’ illnesses, being that smoking was a private decision, was considered ridiculous. If the current lawsuit fails, which it probably will, there will be another, and another, until some idiot jury decides that someone is too fat not because of his hand-to-mouth disease, but because McDonald’s forced him to eat that food!

Count on it: federal government action against food producers and restaurants that serve fatty foods won’t be far behind, at least not if government has a huge vested interest in health care costs.

Of course, the New York City Board of Health isn’t the federal government, but their way of thinking is becoming fairly standard liberalism these days: if your individual choices happen to go against what some official panel of experts believes is contrary to the public good, those choices will simply have to be restricted. And we really shouldn’t object, after all, because it is for our own good!

They will never admit it, of course, and many have probably not even thought about it in any depth, but for many of our friends on the left what is really harmful to our own good, and to society, is freedom. The notion that your choices should not be any of the government’s business unless those choices violate someone else’s rights seems to apply only to abortion these days.
_____________________________
¹ – During the 0700-0730 segment.
² – Even The New York Times, which editorially supports the health care reform law, noted that, during verbal arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Solicitor General “got off to a rocky start and never seemed to quite find his footing during his hour at the Supreme Court lectern.
³ – Department of Health and Human Services v Florida, Transcript of oral arguments, March 27, 2012, page 13, lines 8-12.
4 – The article was in response to Jonathan Cohn’s argument in The New Republic that the government had a reasonable right to punish or restrict personal behavior that costs the government money:

When you put it that way, the idea of a “Twinkie tax,” as it has come to be known, really does sound absurdly paternalistic. If you want to load up on french fries, health risks and all, why is that the government’s business? Unfortunately, fat consumption really is the government’s business in one, very literal, sense. As taxpayers, we all bear the burden of higher medical costs–either directly, by paying for Medicare and Medicaid, or indirectly, by subsidizing employer-based health insurance (which is tax deductible). So, when some people choose to eat poorly, we all end up bearing the financial burden for their decisions.

_____________________________
Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Posted in Constitution Shredded, food, Health, Health Care, Liberal, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Socialists | 2 Comments »

Just who is waging a war on women?

Posted by Dana Pico on 2012/05/20

This story has been making its way around the blogosphere. This one from Donald Douglas:

Jeez, this dude needs to put on a raincoat — either that, or keep it holstered permanently.

See the Los Angeles Times, “Man who had 30 kids with 11 women wants child-support break” (via Memeorandum)

As Darleen Click put it, “Dependency is the new freedom . . . .

I have seen this story floating around, and while the irresponsibility of Desmond Hatchett is obvious, what I haven’t seen is anyone asking:

  • Don’t the women involved have any responsibility for contraception; and
  • Just what kind of self-respect do the ladies in question have if they are copulating with a guy who has been fornicating with that many other women?

The feminists who normally comment on just about anything relating to sex and families have been notably quiet: Amanda Marcotte has, at least thus far, said nothing, Feministing has been completely silent, despite having an article up about maternal health still being a feminist issue, and is concerned about the possible sexism on a picture of a woman riding two dolphins, Melissa McEwan was very busy condemning those who are concerned about the recent demographic news that more non-white babies were born in the US than white ones, including a condemnation of anybody who is in any way critical of contraception, yet hadn’t a word about the Hatchett case, and Think Progress and the Lost Kos and the Delaware Liberal were all silent.

Why? Well, if any of our friends on the left even questioned this case, it would raise questions about the women’s responsibility as well as the man’s. Thirty children by eleven different women means that most of these women had to have multiple children by the same man to whom they were not married and could not support. Were our friends on the left to raise this topic, it would call into question their abandonment of the apparently quaint and surely anti-feminist notion that sex has natural consequences, that women bear the greater burden of these consequences, and the old-fashioned norms that women shouldn’t screw around were for their own protection and well-being.

Contraception? It’s inexpensive and widely available. Abortion? Yes, I would like to outlaw it, but it is still perfectly legal, and a large city like Knoxville, Tennessee (which is the home of the University of Tennessee) has two abortion clinics, with inexpensive fees, along with a link to an organization which can help poor women with those fees.

Dr Douglas concluded:

And it is. The report indicates that some of the mothers of Hatchett’s children get as little as $1.50 a month. Somewhere along the way, probably as early as the first child, Hatchett and his hookups were relying on government to pay for their children, the hospital costs, for example (and pre-natal care), and unless the mothers are living with family members and self-sufficient, there’s no doubt that the kids are being supported through public assistance. Indeed, that’s why the county is all over this dude to get with the program. And I can guarantee you that if you say one word about the breakdown of individual responsibility in this case you’ll be attacked as racist. It’s almost unbelievable to think about what’s happened to this country. That’s almost unbelievable. As long as marriage is ridiculed by the enlightened progressive, and as these same left-wing idiots insist on perverting the institution through gay marriage radicalism, things will only get worse before they get better.

The county “is all over this dude to get with the program?” How? He makes minimum wage which, if the reports are accurate, means he is making $7.25 an hour, or $15,080 a year. Supposedly half of his income is being taken for child support, but, divided among thirty children, doesn’t go very far. If some of the children’s mothers get $1.50 a month, the administrative costs alone are higher than what the recipients get.

The war on women? It was waged with not by Republican policies, but with Desmond Hatchett’s dick, and the people who are suffering the casualties are the eleven women who have children for whom they receive virtually no child support (they were willing casualties), for the thirty children growing up without their scumbag father, and the taxpayers who are going to have to pay for the irresponsibility of Mr Hatchett and his eleven sluts.
______________________________
Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Posted in Character, Gender Issues, Health, Personal Responsibility, Politically Incorrect, society | Tagged: | 7 Comments »

Life Of Naomi: Fate Worse Than Death

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/12

Naomi faces a fate worse than the almost assured death before the age of five that she previously faced. It is absolutely horrendous, as the Puff Ho commenters made very clear. She is being forcefully made healthy and whole, against the wishes of the Leftists at Puff Ho. She is gaining weight from her previous 2-year-old, 14 pound condition, against the wishes of the Leftists at Puff Ho. Her fate of a healthy life and a long, healthy future is far worse than her all-but-guaranteed death by emaciation she had previously faced, according to the Leftists at Puff Ho.

What am I talking about? Bristol Palin, that evil hypocritical Christian Conservative Republican of the Palin lineage, in the Reagan mold, the adopted sister of Jesus Himself, linked to an article written by her co-author Nancy French, another evil Christian Conservative Republican and adopted sister of Jesus Himself.

What was Nancy’s crime that got the Liberal blogosphere all incensed? She and her Christian husband had the audacity to adopt a 2 year old, 14 pound Ethiopian girl and rescue her from certain death. As far as the Leftosphere is concerned, it would have been better for Naomi, the black emaciated Ethiopian girl, to have died than to be raised by white Christian Conservative adoptive parents!

The next time some arrogant arse like Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware arrogantly ignores all facts in order to accuse Republicans of raaaaacism because we disagree with Obama’s Socialist agenda, remind that arrogant arse just who the racists truly are. It’s the Liberals. It’s the Democrats (as shown in my left-hand side-bar). It’s why I have a link-list specifically dedicated to “race traitors”, a name Liberals give to all non-white Conservatives.

It is to spit.

Posted in Character, Christianity, Conservative, Health, history, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, race, Real Life, society, stereotype, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

It’s In The Numbers

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/12

Bristol Palin, whose blog I very highly recommend reading, is wise beyond her years. It has been rumored that she is shacking up with her current boyfriend. She has directly confronted and denied that salacious rumor. She has come out against shacking up before marriage and has used statistics to back up her position. In her conclusion statement, she wrote:

These so-called “trial marriages” hurt men, women, and children. So, all of you girls who’ve said yes to sex in the wrong context know this: you don’t have to say yes to living with someone in the wrong context too.

I guess it’s unanimous. Because now we have the Bible, the New York Times, and even Beyonce suggesting the best way to secure relationship success is to… “put a ring on it.”

Of course, many hateful, vindictive Leftists had to come out of the woodwork to attack her. How dare she, an unwed mother who got herself pregnant as a teenager, declare that shacking up is wrong! I responded to one such vindictive, hateful Leftist who goes by the online moniker “jessicaski” to prove how idiotic her hateful, vindictive attack was.

jessicaski says:
May 11, 2012 at 11:25 am

Since when do you have a no sex before marriage policy? Pretty sure sex comes before the baby…

John Hitchcock says:
May 12, 2012 at 2:09 am

Since when did you determine recovering drug addicts have no right to tell people to say no to drugs?

Since when did you decide that convicted felons in prison cannot participate in the “scared straight” programs to keep young first-time offenders out of prison?

Since when did you determine only sinless people can tell others not to sin?

Since when did you decide it was not okay for someone to say “don’t make the same horrible mistakes I made”?

Seriously, Jessica, grow up and quit being a petulant brat.

It is very easy to see the vengeful hatred coming from the hypocritical libertine Leftists. And it is very easy to call them out on their vengeful, hypocritical, dishonest, libertine hatred. But let’s look at some numbers, shall we?

From Rainbows.org:

75% of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families. (Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)

1 out of 5 children have a learning, emotional, or behavioral problem due to the family system changing. (National Center for Health Statistics)

More than one half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts lived in one-parent families when they were children. (Children’s Defense Fund)

63% of suicides are individuals from single parent families (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin – Investigative Aid)

“Separation, divorce and unmarried parenthood seemed to be a high risk for children/adolescents in these families for the development of suicidal behavior”. (Atilla Turgay, M.D.American Psychiatric Association’s Scientific Meeting, May 1994)

75% of teenage pregnancies are adolescents from single parent homes (Children in need: Investment Strategies…Committee for Economic Development)

“Gang recruitment is a powerful lure for the products of broken homes and single-parent households” as gang members are likely to “receive little guidance or attention from family members at home.” (Chicago Crime Commission Report,1995)

From the Daily Mail (UK):

On crime, [Iain Duncan Smith] said children from broken homes were more than twice as likely to live in poverty than two-parent families.

‘Only 30 per cent of young offenders grew up with both parents. Children from broken homes are nine times more likely to become young offenders.’

He added: ‘This is not some abstract debate. Family life affects all of us – what happens on our streets; in our communities; and in our economy. What you learn from a very early age has a great deal to say about the person you will eventually become and the life you lead.’

It is very clear statistically that children in single-parent households are far more likely to have emotional problems, much more likely to commit suicide, much more likely to commit crimes, much more likely to join gangs than children in traditional homes where the mother and father are both present. It’s an undeniable statistical fact.

From the California State Senate Republican Caucus (yes, there are Republicans in the Senate of the abysmally failed state of Kalifornia, but they’re as rare as a Bald Eagle in Dover):

  • On average, children with married parents have higher grade point averages and test higher than those in other family structures, the lowest being among children with divorced parents.4
  • High school graduation rates for children from two-parent families reach 90 percent, while for children from never-married-mother families only 69 percent graduate.5
  • Children in divorced families are nearly twice as likely to be expelled from school than those in married families, and children in single-parent, never-married families are over four times likely to be expelled.6
  • Rates of incarceration among those raised by one parent only are twice as high as for those raised in intact married-parent families.7
  • Both substance abuse and early sexual activity are associated with a single parent upbringing, and women from single-mother families have about twice the chance of having a child out of marriage by age 20 than women from two-parent families.8
  • Compared to adults raised in two-parent families, those raised in single-parent families earned, on average, $5,015 less per year than their peers.9

Clearly, children raised in two-parent families tend to exhibit behavior that better prepares them to be positive contributors to society, and this is borne out by comparisons of adults based on family structure.

From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (a Government agency):

Birth rates for unmarried women have varied fairly consistently by race and Hispanic origin. The rates for Hispanic women (106 births per 1,000 unmarried women in 2006) and black women (72 per 1,000) were highest. Birth rates for unmarried non-Hispanic white (32 per 1,000) and Asian or Pacific Islander (API) women (26 per 1,000) were much lower.

From Discover The Networks:

In mid-1960s America, the nation’s out-of-wedlock birth rate (which stood at 7.7 percent at the time) began a rapid and relentless climb across all demographic lines, a climb that would continue unabated until 1994, when the Welfare Reform Act put the brakes on that trend. Today the overall American illegitimacy rate is about 33 percent (26 percent for whites). For blacks, it hovers at near 70 percent—approximately three times the level of black illegitimacy that existed when the War on Poverty began in 1964.

Illegitimacy is an important issue because it has a great influence on all statistical indicators of a population group’s progress or decline. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women, and that trend continued uninterrupted until the passage of welfare reform. The black out-of-wedlock birth rates in some inner cities now exceed 80 percent, and most of those mothers are teens. Because unmarried teenage mothers—whatever their race—typically have no steady employment, nearly 80 percent of them apply for welfare benefits within five years after giving birth to their first child. No group can withstand such a wholesale collapse of its family structure without experiencing devastating social consequences.

Crime rates are higher among those raised in single-parent households.
Suicide rates are higher among those raised in single-parent households.
Psychological problems are higher among those raised in single-parent households.
Poverty rates are higher among those born to single parents than those born to a father and mother.
Black women are more likely than white women to give birth outside wedlock.
Prior to the Republican-forced Welfare Reform that the Democrat Clinton vetoed twice before finally succumbing and signing when presented to him a third time, black out-of-wedlock child-birth surpassed in numbers black married child-birth.

As we know, the crime rate among the black population is much higher than among the white population, as is the incarceration rate. As the above very clearly shows, the black population is more likely to have out-of-wedlock births than married births. As the above also clearly shows, the black population is more likely to have out-of-wedlock births than the white or Asian populations. So it stands to reason that the drop-out rate, the crime rate, the poverty rate all are higher among the black population than the white population, as very clearly declared by the correlation to the lack of proper traditional family structure.

It is also worth noting that 97 percent of blacks and 70 percent of high school drop-outs voted for Barack Obama in 2008, when Obama got less than 55 percent of the popular vote.

You want to win the war on poverty? You want to win the war on crime? You want to win the war on illiteracy and educational failings? You want to win the war on mental health failings? Fight for traditional family structures, which are statistically proven to be far superior to anything else. Who fights for the traditional family structure? That would be Conservatives. Who fights against the traditional family structure? That would be Democrats and Libertine Leftists (but I repeat myself).

Stand on the side of statistical fact, and stand against the Libertine Left. (Doing the former will automatically mean doing the latter.)

Posted in Character, Conservative, economics, education, Health, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Politically Incorrect, politics, race, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Tips For A Food-Aggressive Dog

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/04/18

I have a food-aggressive dog. She’s very friendly (overly friendly) with people she knows and a loud-mouthed, barking coward with people she doesn’t know. She would never actually intentionally bite anyone, because she’s too cowardly. But people are afraid of loudly barking German Shepherds, and rightfully so. Okay, that was a side-point, but one that I used to tell you what kind of dog I have. I have a purebred German Shepherd. And she’s food-aggressive. Try to hand-feed her and next time you do that, you’ll be stump-feeding her. She’ll chomp down HARD on the hand that’s feeding her.

And she’s a Shep. She can do it. It can become an issue with neighbor children around, even though she’s tied up. So, I’ve come up with a plan to break her of her food-aggressivity. A former neighbor suggested I put her food on a plate and then hold a board across the plate so that she can only get so much of it. He said that would break her. So there’s one tip. But I’m not using that tip. It doesn’t really make sense to me, but he swore by it, so you can try it out if you want. I’m using an idea I came up with myself.

Necessity is the mother of inventions. And, while this doesn’t exactly qualify as an invention, it fits within that realm as it’s creative ingenuity. When my daughter just recently moved out, she left behind a good sized bag full of “small” dog biscuits. It says so right on the bag. “Small dog biscuits.” Miniature, microscopic, barely visible. Those terms are more fitting. I could hold 15 of those “small” biscuits in my hand and still close it to make a fist, they’re “small”.

So, I decided to use those tiny things to break my German Shepherd’s food-aggressivity. But I wasn’t going to hold them in my hand. I like my hand just the way it is, thank you very much. So, what to do? I went out to the shed and into my tool crate, and pulled out just what the doctor ordered: a pair of small vice grips.

Want to make your food-aggressive dog not food-aggressive? Here’s how to do it, the Truth Before Dishonor way. First you get yourself a large supply of far-too-small-for-your-dog dog biscuits. Securely tie your dog to a stake or a tree or what have you, where it cannot get free. Then you grab your vice grips. Setting your vice grips to a position where they grip the dog biscuit just well enough that it doesn’t fall out, place the tip of the tiny biscuit in the vice grips. Hold onto the very end of the vice grips. Stretch the dog biscuit out to where your dog is quite literally at the end of his rope and let him bite down wherever he wants to. And then repeat. Your dog will quickly realize he doesn’t want to bite the vice grips (they are not so soft as your hands) and will then start being very careful as to where he bites, only biting onto the food. And even grabbing the food with his mouth without actually biting it, in order to free it from the vice grips.

Repeat this process several times with the too-small-to-be filling dog biscuits. And then do it on several more days. Soon, your dog will automatically be careful as to where and what he bites, and you will no longer have a food-aggressive dog. (That’s my hope anyway. I’ve just begun the process, and the signs are there that she’s learning.)

Posted in food, Health, Real Life | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

By a Fluke, This Was A Manufactured Crisis Meant to Distract From Gas, Unemployment, and BO’s Dismal Record

Posted by Yorkshire on 2012/03/08

Dig and you find the Fluke debacle is a Manufactured Distraction (Excerpts from the Fluke Open Thread)
York
Anyone who believes all that bile is a useful idiot for the Puppet Master, Soros. Let’s face it, Fluke is a manufactured crisis to distract the Proles from reality that Unemployment is back up to 9.1% – reality 15%, gas is $4 before the election instead of afterwards, price of goods are climbing, the Muddled East is ready to go nuclear along with the want of the fools there to eliminate Israel, Syria is a powderkeg, and the world is fixated on Fluck’s Fluckin Vagina. Can we spell distraction????
ropelight says: In response
March 8, 2012 at 17:00
York, since I regard George Soros as a prominent useful idiot and one already marked for early execution following the communist takeover, it seems I failed to make myself clear.
Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia on the topic: (indicates my added comments)

In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term used to describe people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause. (and who face summary execution once their immediate utility has expired)
The term was originally used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication is that although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used.
The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naively believe to be a force for good…
A similar term, “useful innocents”, is used in Austrian-American economist Ludwig von Mises’ “Planned Chaos”. Von Mises claims the term was used by communists for liberals that von Mises describes as “confused and misguided sympathizers”.
Modern usage: the term has been used by some commentators to describe people the commentators believe are effectively supporting Islamic terrorism by favouring an approach based on appeasement. Anthony Browne wrote in the British newspaper, The Times:
Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots.
A 2010 BBC radio documentary lists among useful idiots of Joseph Stalin several prominent British writers including H. G. Wells and Doris Lessing, the Irish writer George Bernard Shaw, and the American journalist Walter Duranty and the
singer Paul Robeson.

York, I don’t disagree that Sandra Fluke is a manufactured distraction, but she’s only a mere pawn in the game insufficiently important to rate a footnote except as a current example of one of the organized Left’s standard tactics employed by useful idiots to deflect attention away from damaging revelations such as you listed above.

Yorkshire says:
March 8, 2012 at 17:09

Rope:
York, I don’t disagree that Sandra Fluke is a manufactured distraction, but she’s only a mere pawn in the game insufficiently important to rate a footnote except as a current example of one of the organized Left’s standard tactics employed by useful idiots to deflect attention away from damaging revelations such as you listed above.

Whether they are the Used, or are the User, I sorta see them in the same light. May not fit the term 100% but they were still USED

Yorkshire says:
March 8, 2012 at 18:40
Anna Nova says:
March 8, 2012 at 17:18

“By what you are also doing here, change the subject to a distraction.”

Uh-huh. So in an open thread about a young woman who was called a “slut” and a “prostitute” by Rush Limbaugh, in response to people claiming conspiracies involving George Soros and Nancy Pelosi, asking how exactly these people made Limbaugh do anything is a “distraction”?
Do you even listen to your own words these days?

What words by Limbaugh are just a reaction to the absurdidy of the whole situation. It’s what happens when you look at the 200 ft level view of things. You certainly miss the 20,000 ft view of the situation. It’s like the debate where George Stephonopolis brought up contraception in the debate. Everyone of the candidates looked at this as a question from Left Field. Why was it asked? Now we know why. It was the Libs/Socialists 20,000 ft view to lead to distraction as I pointed out above. With Pelosi involved and others, it all makes sense now. It’s easier to get the proles thinking of sex and distract them from $3.999 per gallon of gas. It also distracts from 9.1% (really near 15%) unemployment. It’s like old Rome where there was Bread, the Circus and the Gladiators to distract from the reality Rome was becoming unraveled. Well, a lot of people have caught on to the distraction. If you want to keep on talking about Rush and all those horrible people on the Right, just go ahead with your own perverted follies.

Posted in Health, Health Care, history, media, Obama, Politically Incorrect, politics, Real Life, Socialists | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off

Old McDonald(s)

Posted by DNW on 2011/09/30

 

 

While I have a moment here I might as well comment on a phenomenon I’ve noticed recently; though I make no claim that it is a necessarily recent phenomenon, nor that it is a widespread one. Just one that a potential variation from my normal habits caused me to take note of.

I think in the last several months it’s happened about oh, three or four times, maybe five times.

While driving to the office relatively late, and after not having eaten breakfast, it occurred to me to take advantage of the “drive-thru” at a McDonalds which is a couple miles from my house and which I pass by on my way to the office.

Now, I know it’s not exactly a healthy choice, and that even under time pressures, there are better alternatives. But I chose it anyway. See, I had a B-vitamin pill slurry sloshing nauseatingly around my otherwise empty stomach, and exemptions were justified. At least that’s what I told myself.

That said, there turned out to be no real reason for guilt after all. My new pathway to sin more resembled that of the kid who tries to buy beer and fails, than the one who succeeds.

For I was never able to force myself to bear the wait necessary to obtain said forbidden fruit. Why not? Well, in each instance there were nine or more cars lined up waiting to order. That’s why. The last two times, disbelieving what I was experiencing, I actually counted them: 13 and 11 respectively.

Now what this is all about is not really how many cars there were, nor my cholesterol saving impatience, but the socially significant fact of who was in all those cars that blocked my way and prevented my from fall from dietary grace.

Other than the couple of guys in tradesman vans you might expect, those populating the queues of suppliants yearning for the Mikey D experience, were nearly all very late middle-aged, or just-elderly, women.

That’s who, figuratively speaking, elbowed me out of the food line. A bunch of grandmas.

What’s the world coming to when even Grandma can’t be trusted to do the right thing, while I do the wrong?

Now, if you want to split hairs, they are of course, technically speaking,  free to eat whatever they like.  And, if you insist on being a killjoy about it, I guess I don’t really even know for certain what it was that they were buying there at McDonalds, at 9:30 in the morning.

But it just kind of surprised me, and brought home more forcefully than ever, how the generations now living, even the older generations, are so thoroughly co-opted by, and apparently comfortable with, “the program”.

And … and … well,  who can we rely on to do the right thing,  if we can’t rely on America’s old ladies? I mean, shouldn’t they be pruning roses, or watering the raspberry patch, or interfering in vestry affairs, rather than spewing carbon monoxide into the atmosphere and shamelessly gorging themselves on Egg McMuffins?

Aren’t there even any sixties era types left who remain true to the “whole foods” movement, and who, as a result, do not conspicuously clog up the McDonalds’ drive-thru??

They must still exist somewhere! Just look at how many Democrats continue to be elected.

I guess it’s just that they, and their McDonalds, are found in another part of town …

Posted in food, Gender Issues, Health, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, stereotype | 8 Comments »

“Hunger Triggers Anger”

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/09/18

So I’m on the NewsMax mailing list and I get this email from NewsMax Health with the header being, among other things, “Hunger triggers anger.” And I think to myself “well, duh.” Ya see, there is this little family history where certain members of the family get “the shakes” on occasion and need food NOW! My mother has it. I have it. My daughter has it.

Now, when we say we need food NOW, that is not an invitation to discuss dinner plans or options on what to cook and eat in 45 minutes. That’s a requirement to get something into our gullets immediately if not sooner. And if you take it as an opportunity to discuss dinner or to ask about a person in our charge while we need food NOW, you will definitely get your head chewed off and then we’ll find something to eat and instantly be fine again.

You might get an apology from us after the fact. You might not. Since you were the one that caused the explosion. But when “the shakes” come, and it is a quite rare event (it’s happened to me 6 times or so in the last 10 years) that demands very immediate attention. And our nerves are extraordinarily on edge to the point of explosion with the wrong input.

Does hunger trigger anger? I say it depends on the form of the hunger, but it most definitely can. And you don’t want to get my Irish up or I could go native and add another scalp to my collection.

Posted in food, Health, Real Life | Tagged: | Comments Off

How Much Sex Do Fifth-Graders Know?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/09/16

That is the question Washington DC schools are about to get answered. Because Washington DC has a far too high teen pregnancy rate. So obviously the kids don’t know enough about sex and condoms, right? That’s the standard Liberal answer. Not enough knowledge. The DC schools will test 5th graders on human sexuality, contraception, and drug use in the Spring of 2012, because they obviously don’t know enough, at 11 years old, about being safely sexually active. But as RS McCain points out, it wasn’t a heavy amount of knowledge teens had in 1948 but rather a much stronger moral value which kept teen pregnancy from being the out of control problem it is today.

There was a stigma attached to extra-marital sexual activity back in 1948, and rightfully so, for social, economic, and health reasons. There was a stigma attached to drug use as well. But the modern Left, in all their brilliance, decided to rid the public of its very healthy stigmatization of immoral and very unhealthy life choices. What did that bring us? Broken homes, single parent households dependent on government handouts, high drop-out rates, an exploding drug problem, an explosion in STDs, and a generally decadent society.

Children don’t need to learn all about sexuality before they’re even old enough to date. Children don’t need to learn the “how to”s. That’s not the problem and that’s not the answer. A little old fashioned morality and Personal Responsibility (which is hated by Liberals) would go a long way in repairing all the damage the Leftist “stigma free zone” has wrought upon us. And it would help fix our Federal, State, and Local Budget problems as fewer people would be leeching off the taxpayers.

Posted in Character, Conservative, economics, education, Health, Health Care, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, truth, Youth | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Planned Parenthood Broke State Law, Says Judge

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/06/17

News out of Ohio, from the Susan B Anthony List (reprinted with permission):


Ohio Court Rules Planned Parenthood Violated State Law

An Ohio judge has ruled that a Planned Parenthood clinic violated state law in a case involving a 14 year old girl impregnated by her 22 year old soccer coach. Ohio state law requires a doctor to meet with a woman seeking an abortion at least 24 hours before actually performing the procedure to discuss abortion alternatives. Not only did Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio break this requirement, it also failed to report the occurrence of statutory rape as required by law.

The girl’s attorney, Brian Hurly, summarized the victory, and the larger issue, well by saying, “The health and safety of young girls is more important than Planned Parenthood’s desire to perform an abortion.”

Creative Minority Report adds this:

So they didn’t wait 24 hours, they didn’t go over abortion alternatives, and they didn’t report a rape which they are required to do by law. Hey, remember how Planned Parenthood said that all those Lila Rose vids were edited and she was a big fat liar. Well, the court just found that they were doing exactly what we all knew they’ve been doing.

I would also like to add those people who called Live Action, Lila Rose, and Andrew Breitbart big fat liars in their reporting on Planned Parenthood’s criminal activities to the list of people who need to apologize and admit they were being honest and forthright.

Posted in abortion, crime, education, Health, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics, society, truth, Youth | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Bad Technology, Bad, Bad, BAD Technology

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/05/18

Robert Stacy McCain wrote an article where he torched spellcheck. Little Miss Attila grudgingly agreed. (They have a friendly animosity going.) And over on Attila the hon’s site (where she has me on her blogroll and RS McCain doesn’t on his), ponce chose to do what he does best: Reject all pretense at logical debate and issue forth with personal attacks based on “facts not in evidence.” He starts out with:

A wingnut bumpkin who hates technology?

Now there’s something you don’t read about every day.

and later adds:

I can understand someone who has so few skills to offer the world getting upset when some da** hippie gives away software for free that allows everyone to do that skill just as well as he can.

It’s a hilarious example of logic failure, following the crowd, projection, misdirection, straw-man, claim to higher intellect based purely on political alignment and then some. (Hube wrote about the “intellectuals” and why people don’t revere them here, where he totally blows up the “leftists are smart, rightist are dumb” Leftist meme.)

Let’s get this out in the open. Technology is neither good nor bad. It’s what people do with technology that is either good or bad.

Many consider the Zager and Evans song In The Year 2525, which went to Number 1 in the pop charts in 1969, to be an anti-technology anthem. They may be right. It is also important to note the hyper-environmentalists are Left-Wingers who hate technology, so despite ponce’s protestations otherwise, it isn’t a Right-Wing thing.

Again, technology is neither good nor bad. It’s what people do with technology that is either good or bad. Spellcheck for example. Robert Stacy McCain and Little Miss Attila have expressed an aversion to it. I hate it, myself. Ponce is apparently under the delusion that spellcheck makes people good writers and that good writers without spellcheck are no better than the average Joe with spellcheck. That, in itself, is nonsense. As RS McCain properly noted,

Merely being able to write correctly is not, however, to be confused with writing well. That is to say, good grammar does not guarantee that what you are writing will be coherent or interesting. However, correct grammar and spelling are (or at least should be) viewed as a prerequisite to good writing. [italics his, bolding mine]

Also note: Spellcheck does not check for grammar, although there are utilities which do, indeed, check for grammar. RS McCain’s point is duly lost on the pea-brain knee-jerk Leftist troll ponce. Proper spelling and proper grammar do not at all guarantee a quality product.

More than half of Detroit residents are functionally illiterate. Six out of ten who attend school in Detroit’s public schools graduate. You do the math. (More on math later.) Half of Detroit’s functionally illiterate population has either a diploma or a GED. And Liberal-owned Detroit (has been for 60 years) pumps huge dollars into the Liberal-owned public schools, to the tune of $13,000 per student, so it’s definitely not a money issue, contrary to Liberal claims. It’s a Leftist philosophy issue (and Leftist philosophy always fails when it meets the real world). These people will depend on spellcheck for job opportunities. Or they will depend on other people to write their resumes and fill out their applications.

No, spellcheck is not bad in and of itself, but when the human variable is added to the equation, spellcheck is suddenly a bad thing. People grow to depend on it and forget how to spell. Or they never learn how to spell in the first place. The grammar-checking applications are in the same manner bad, not because they are bad in a vacuum but due to how they’re used. Robert Stacy McCain stated they were basically a crutch and Little Miss Attila basically agreed. I disagree. Spellcheck is an albatross. And the utilities that evaluate grammar are likewise albatrosses. If you have those tools, why bother learning proper spelling or proper grammar? You can depend on technology to do your learning for you. And then you can use someone who does know a bit of spelling and grammar to bridge the gap.

Remember when I said “you do the math” earlier? Why bother when you can depend on this technological wonder called a calculator? Oh, yes. Junior high school students are required to take calculators to their junior high school math classes in some public schools! Why bother learning how to do the stuff when you can have a piece of technology that will do it for you? All you have to do is learn how to properly enter “246 + 175 =” into your handy-dandy calculator and enter the output onto a piece of paper and you pass the math test! We don’t need no larnin when we gots us some techy. Sides, when we gonna use that junk anyhows? (Oops, forgot to use my spellcheck and my grammar utilities.)

I bought my favorite Starbucks beverage and paid with a $20. The cashier, a high school graduate, rang it up and instead of telling the cash register I paid with a $20, told the cash register I paid with a $10. She had to void out the entire sale and re-ring it to tell the cash register I paid with a $20. Because her high school diploma didn’t educate her well enough for her to understand what change I should receive compared to her “ring up.”

But it goes beyond the educational albatrosses crippling our multiple generations. (“Sofa’s for sale” on a billboard) We are depending on many crocogators to take us across rivers.

Soap that kills 99.99 percent of all bacteria. Super antibiotics. Germicidal this. Germicidal that. Kill them all so our bodies don’t have to come in contact with them. Question: How do vaccines work? Question: What is a supervirus and why does it matter?

Vaccines work by introducing something bad and dangerous to your body and forcing your body to fight back.

If you go to the gym, you run on a treadmill or lift weights or use the stair climber or any manner of other pieces of equipment. Doing that causes microscopic damage to your muscle tissue and forces your body to repair it and build it better and stronger.

When my daughter and I prepare steak for cooking, we trim the fat off the meat. Then, we eat small bits of raw steak. I “cross-contaminate” by cutting my meat with the same knife I then cut my veggies with.

In the 1980s, I saw a news report about a man in Ohio who had a tin cup in his canoe. When he went on the river to go fishing, he used that tin cup to draw water out of the river and drink it. Would I be willing to do that? On most rivers, yes.

Some of this stuff I wouldn’t advise. But the point remains the same. If you build your body up to be able to resist various microbes, your body will do just that. But if you are overly dependent on technology to prevent your body from experiencing microbes, you will not be capable of handling it without the technology. You will be the weaker for it.

As my intro song goes, an over-dependence on technology will only serve to make you “less than.” Technology is not bad. An over-dependence on technology is always bad. Superbugs come from that. Functional illiteracy comes from that. Mathematical illiteracy comes from that.

Historical illiteracy is a completely “nother” subject, but it falls in the same pattern. Technology takes care of everything so nothing needs to be learned. Just click your mouse.

Is technology bad? No. People are bad. They’re bad machines. And they’re built that way in the factories.

(momentary naked butt)

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, education, food, Health, Health Care, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society | 1 Comment »

Ugly Bad Meets Beautiful Good

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/03/05

I am a Cavaliers fan from back into the early 70s and I am a “LBJ for permanent MVP” fan. But, while this revolves around the court, it has nothing to do with basketball and everything to do with character. To set this up, the Cleveland Cavaliers were hosting evil incarnate, aka the Detroit Pistons. I hate the Pistons and wish they’d lose every game every season, and they’re trying to do just that this season. This is Cleveland against Detroit, Ohio against that state up north, etc, etc. But that’s not all this is.

This is a group of professionals doing their best. This is a group of professionals who respect one another’s talents and gifts and humanity. This does not build character, but it shows character. And the Cavaliers showed their character tonight.

From NBA.com:

CLEVELAND (AP) — Detroit’s Rodney Stuckey was conscious and breathing on his own as he was taken to a hospital after collapsing on the Pistons’ bench during a game Friday night.

The Pistons said Stuckey was taken to the Cleveland Clinic and his vital signs were stable, but was going for further testing and observation.

Stuckey was wheeled off the court on a stretcher during the third quarter after he collapsed into a trainer’s arms on the bench during the game against the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Stuckey walked off the floor for a timeout showing no signs of illness. After a few moments in a chair, though, Stuckey slumped over.

Medical personnel rushed over to the Pistons’ bench with a stretcher. Play was halted for 12 minutes as the medical staff worked on Stuckey, placed an oxygen mask on his face and wheeled him into an ambulance.

Cleveland players huddled together with their heads bowed, while Pistons teammate Tayshaun Prince sat silent in his chair a few feet away as Stuckey was being treated.

I do hope and pray Rodney Stuckey comes out alright and has a full recovery. That is first and foremost above any mere game. And the Cavaliers, as a team, showed their great respect for a fellow player and member of the human race in their team prayer for Stuckey. This is where the players showed their honor, character and humanity.

The Cavs came back from 20 down to win the game and LBJ was huge as usual, but that’s not at all important compared to the well-being of an associate. Cudos to the Cavs. And I pray Rodney Stuckey has a full recovery.

Posted in Character, Health, Personal Responsibility, Real Life, society | 1 Comment »

Would You Abort This?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/12/17

When is a human not a human? When is a fetus a human? Fetus is Latin for “off-spring.” (page 528) That means you are currently the fetus of your parents. Got it?

My daughter sent me some pics of my grandson at 28 weeks gestation. He is very much human. He even has his eyes open in one shot. And he has his father’s nose, for sure. (His mother doesn’t have a wide nose like that.)

Now, tell me, do you have the inhumanity, the criminality, the ego-centric demand, the hate to abort THAT?

Posted in abortion, Christianity, Creation, education, Health, Personal Responsibility, politics, Real Life, society, truth | 11 Comments »

Musing On Rom’s Case

Posted by Foxfier on 2009/11/27

Taken nearly whole-sale from my comments here.

Another reader, Kcom, drew attention to the other Big Story of this week– the AGW fraud coming out.

Oddly enough, (8^D) I had previously wondered at the difference in my response to the two stories– after all, they were both “scientists say something that pisses some people off, and may demand changes being morally needed.”  Was the difference because I wanted to believe one and not the other?  Clearly, the demands of the climate guys would touch my life more than “people diagnosed as ‘human vegetables’ aren’t always.”

I think it’s instructive to notice the difference between the two cases; the AGW fraud folks make their entire living off of showing that humans are killing us all, and they stand to gain power from their findings being put forth, do not act as though their claims are true (Stop using so much fossil fuels or the world will end! But I’m flying to the AGW conference. In a private jet.) and they release conclusions very quickly to the popular media while trying to control the scientific media to prevent any disagreement.

The folks involved with Rom’s case make their living otherwise (although it does seem to be Dr. Laureys’ pet theory that those diagnosed with PVS often aren’t), stand to gain mostly personal attacks because their theories make “useless eaters” that can be easily dehumanized much harder to dehumanize, act as though they believe their results (My scans show brain activity in the normal range! Get this man to therapy!) and the story didn’t show up in the popular media for three years– after putting out a paper on the topic.

This new article (evil AP!  Warning!) makes me more confident in Dr. Laureys’ group, since 1) he’s acting like the guy is a patient instead of a project ( “How would you like me discussing your IQ on the Internet?”) and because their response to attacks on the facilitated communication is to point out that they’re working on a study to validate it (this could be bad, unless they’ve already got all the information and are just writing it up, but I’m willing to offer the benefit of the doubt since they’ve shown a willingness to test themselves before) and are aware it’s controversial.

Oh, and this line is epic:
He refused to discuss it in the media, saying he will follow the classical route of scientific peer reviews and publication in specialized journals before making it public to the world at large.

Of course, there’s the other point that I’m biased away from making dire changes in any situation– not sure the guy is dead?  Not “as good as dead,” or “has a life not worth living,” or “is way more useful if we kill him to save twenty other people who will be able to pay us.” Assume they are alive and treat them morally. Don’t kill them for ease, emotion or spare parts.

Not sure that there’s even long-term warming going on, let alone exactly what is causing it? Then don’t force huge, expensive, totalitarian changes that will only work if one of many theories is right, and at best will just slow down disaster while removing our ability to adapt.

Presumption in favor of life and basic rights, basically. Probably related to my not trusting folks with more power than utterly needful.  Which would be why I like republic-flavored gov’ts over democracies…. (Two wolves and  a sheep, y’know?)

(another reader did some similar musing here)

Posted in Christianity, Conservative, Health, Health Care, Real Life, society, truth | Comments Off

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: